Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Buffington
This text of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Buffington (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Buffington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-14-0000880 07-JUL-2014 11:11 AM SCAD-14-0000880
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,
vs.
EADEAN M. BUFFINGTON, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 12-017-9033)
ORDER ALLOWING RESIGNATION IN LIEU OF DISCIPLINE (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson JJ.)
Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary
Counsel (ODC)’s petition for an order granting the request of
attorney Eadean M. Buffington to resign from the practice of law
in lieu of discipline, and the memorandum, affidavits, and
exhibits attached in support thereof, we note the petition is
supported by Respondent Buffington’s affidavit and that the
affidavit meets the requirements of Rule 2.14(a) of the Rules of
the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH). In sum,
Buffington admits to failing to act with reasonable competence or
diligence in her representation of clients, assisting a client in
a fraudulent act, failing to deposit funds entrusted to her in a client matter into her client trust account, commingling and
misappropriating $21,750.00 in funds entrusted to her, committing
criminal acts that reflects adversely on her honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, and
engaging in deceitful conduct, resulting in multiple violations
of Rules 1.1, 1.2(d), 1.15(c), 1.15(d), 8.4(b) and 8.4(c) of the
Hawai#i Rules of Professional Conduct. It further appears that,
because Respondent Buffington’s behavior included
misappropriation of client funds, any reinstatement must be
predicated upon full restitution of all misappropriated money.
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.14, that
the petition is granted and Respondent Eadean M. Buffington’s
request to resign in lieu of discipline is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the resignation is effective
30 days after the date of this order, as provided by RSCH Rules
2.14(d) and 2.16(c).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any future reinstatement is
conditioned upon proof that Respondent Buffington has made full
restitution of all misappropriated monies.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) the Clerk shall remove
Respondent Buffington’s name from the role of attorneys licensed
to practice law in this jurisdiction and (2) within thirty days
after entry of this order, Respondent Buffington shall submit to
2 the Clerk of this court the original certificate evidencing her
license to practice law in this jurisdiction or an affidavit
establishing good cause for her failure to do so.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) Respondent Buffington
shall comply with the requirements of RSCH Rule 2.16 and (2) the
Disciplinary Board shall provide notice of the disbarment as
required by RSCH Rule 2.16(e) and (f).
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Buffington shall
bear the costs of these proceedings, upon the timely submission
by ODC of a verified bill of costs, as authorized by RSCH Rule
2.3(c).
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 7, 2014.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Buffington, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-buffington-haw-2014.